The Delhi High Court has ruled that unproven adultery allegations cannot stop interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act. However, if adultery is later proved in trial, the wife must return the entire maintenance amount with interest.
New Delhi: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the Delhi High Court delivered a significant judgment that directly affects thousands of men facing domestic violence and maintenance litigation.
The case arose from a husband’s challenge to an interim maintenance order passed in favour of his wife under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, raising serious questions on adultery allegations, misuse of law, and financial liability imposed on men at an interim stage.
The husband argued that his wife was “living in adultery” and therefore could not be treated as an “aggrieved person” under the law. He relied on photographs to claim that the wife was in a live-in relationship with another man during the subsistence of marriage.
His clear stand was that once such conduct is visible even prima facie, the law should not compel a husband to pay interim maintenance.
The wife, on the other hand, alleged domestic violence and claimed she was subjected to physical, sexual, verbal, emotional and economic abuse. She accused the husband of repeated humiliation, character assassination and even calling her a “prostitute”.
She further alleged that she was forced to leave her job, denied basic financial support, falsely accused of theft, and ultimately compelled to leave the matrimonial home.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that the existence of a domestic relationship between the parties was not disputed. The Court observed that at the interim stage, the wife had placed WhatsApp chats and a Domestic Incident Report on record, which prima facie indicated conduct falling within the definition of domestic violence under the Act.
The Court recorded that such allegations, if taken at face value, were sufficient at this stage to treat the wife as an “aggrieved person”.
Addressing the core concern repeatedly raised by men across India, the Court examined whether a wife alleged to be “living in adultery” can be denied interim maintenance. The Court made it clear that allegations of adultery are disputed questions of fact and “are matters of trial” which must be proved by leading evidence.
The Court categorically held that at the interim stage, it cannot rely on photographs whose authenticity is disputed, especially when allegations of manipulation and fabrication are raised.
The Court also took judicial note of the growing misuse of technology and observed that the genuineness and veracity of such material can only be examined after evidence is led. Relying on earlier judgments, the Court reiterated that interim maintenance cannot be denied merely on the basis of unproven allegations of an illicit relationship.
Importantly, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma drew a clear legal distinction between Section 125 of the CrPC and the Domestic Violence Act. The Court noted that while Section 125(4) CrPC contains an express bar where a wife “living in adultery” is not entitled to maintenance:
“There is no express statutory bar under the PWDV Act disentitling a woman from seeking reliefs merely on the allegation that she is living in adultery”.
The Court further observed that the Domestic Violence Act has a much wider scope and provides multiple civil reliefs, including monetary relief.
On the issue of income, the husband claimed that he earned only ₹25,000 per month and argued that the bank credits relied upon by the lower courts were not income but proceeds of PPF, fixed deposits and recurring deposits made by his parents.
The Court rejected this argument, agreeing with the Magistrate and Sessions Court that the husband failed to place convincing material to support his claim. Relying on income tax returns and bank statements, the Court upheld the assessment of income and the interim maintenance amount of ₹26,000 per month.
The most critical part of the judgment lies in the safeguard clearly laid down by the Court. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that:
“In the event the learned Magistrate/Trial Court, upon appreciation of evidence led by the parties, comes to the conclusion that the respondent-wife is not entitled to maintenance on account of living in adultery, the respondent-wife shall be liable to return the entire amount of interim maintenance received by her to the petitioner-husband, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum”.
The Court further directed that the wife:
“Shall also file an affidavit… undertaking to return the amount of interim maintenance received by her, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum”.
The Court also acknowledged the prolonged suffering caused by such litigation and directed that the domestic violence case be decided expeditiously, preferably within one year, considering the serious allegations made by both parties.
This judgment once again exposes the harsh legal reality for men in India. Even when serious allegations like adultery are raised, men are compelled to pay interim maintenance without a full trial. At the same time, the ruling offers limited but important relief by making it clear that such interim payments are not final and can be recovered with interest if misuse is ultimately proven.
For men trapped in false or exaggerated cases, this judgment sends a clear message, that interim relief laws remain heavily skewed against men, but persistence in trial is the only real safeguard, because only a full judicial examination of evidence can expose misuse, restore accountability, and ultimately deliver justice.
Explanatory Table: Laws And Sections Involved
| Law & Section | Purpose (Short) | How It Was Applied in This Case |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 2(a) | Defines “aggrieved person” | Wife was treated as an aggrieved person based on prima facie allegations of domestic violence, despite husband alleging adultery. |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 3 | Defines domestic violence | Court found WhatsApp chats and Domestic Incident Report sufficient at interim stage to show alleged domestic violence. |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 12 | Filing DV complaint | Wife filed DV case seeking protection and monetary relief under this provision. |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 23 | Interim relief powers | Magistrate granted interim maintenance of ₹26,000 per month under this section. |
| Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 29 | Right to appeal | Husband filed appeal against interim maintenance order; appeal was dismissed. |
| Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 125 | Maintenance provision | Referred to for legal comparison on maintenance principles. |
| Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 125(4) | Bar if wife living in adultery | Court noted this bar exists under CrPC, but does not automatically apply to DV Act cases. |
| Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 24 | Maintenance during matrimonial cases | Cited through precedents to explain that adultery allegations must be proved at trial. |
Case Details
- Case Title: Ateet Jain vs Chhavi Jain
- Case Number: CRL.REV.P. 335/2024 along with CRL.M.A. 7628/2024 & CRL.M.A. 32853/2025
- Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
- Bench: Hon’ble Dr. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
- Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:913
- Dates:
- Judgment Reserved On: 07.11.2025
- Judgment Pronounced On: 04.02.2026
- Judgment Uploaded On: 04.02.2026
- Counsels:
- For Petitioner: Mr. Rajiv Khosla, Ms. Kashika KapoorMr. Apoorva Khosla, Ms. Shreya Kumar Sharma, and Mr. Surender Chauhan
- For Respondent: Mr. Roopenshu Pratap Singh, Mr. Manish Sharma, Mr. Abhinav Bhatnagar, and Mr. Aditya Taneja
Key Takeaways
- Allegations of adultery, even if serious, do not protect men from paying interim maintenance unless conclusively proved in trial.
- The Domestic Violence Act has no automatic bar like Section 125(4) CrPC, which continues to disadvantage husbands at the interim stage.
- Disputed evidence such as photographs or digital material will not be relied upon without full trial, even when misuse is apparent.
- Men must be prepared for prolonged litigation, as interim orders are based on prima facie views, not final truth.
- The only real safeguard for men is persistence in trial, because courts can order refund of maintenance with interest if misuse and adultery are finally proved
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.